It's good to actually read wikipedia articles before you claim them to support your conclusion, and claim that they must include "a single reputable historian" who agrees with your claims. Otherwise it comes across as pretty dumb...

Your claim (three posts ago) is that both passages in Josephus are "highly suspected forgeries" and that Tacitus based himself on Christian hear-say for the Annales. I asked you what scholar agreed with those assessments. You then linked to a wikipedia article, praying (probably) that at least one of them would agree with those three claims. Well, tough luck for you, here's what it says in the article:

Concerning the first passage in Josephus:While very few scholars believe the whole Testimonium is genuine,[54] most scholars have found at least some authentic words of Josephus in the passage,[55] since some portions are written in his style."Judging from Alice Whealey's 2003 survey of the historiography, it seems that the majority of modern scholars consider that Josephus really did write something here about Jesus, but that the text that has reached us is corrupt."
"Dr. Geza Vermes points out in an in-depth analysis of the passage that much of the language is typically Josephan, which not only supports the hypothesis that Josephus did write something about Jesus, but also may aid in determining which parts of the passage are genuine[47]"This is what I have been saying the whole time: the passage was altered, it was added unto, but there was an original passage there concerning Jesus.

Concerning the second passage in Josephus:
"The main reason to believe Josephus did originally mention Jesus is the fact that the majority of scholars accept the authenticity of his passage on Jesus' brother James."

So we have a majority arguing that the first passage is genuine, a vast majority arguing that the second is genuine, and a majority arguing that Tacitus is good evidence. You've yet to show a single scholar who holds the three claims you made.

If, by fake, you mean that the evidence has been altered or tampered with, you are correct. But the references to Jesus in Josephus and Tacitus were most likely in the originals, though the exact wording and details have been altered by copyist error and Christian embellishment. As for the supernatural, some of the so-called miracles may have originated as cures effected through folk remedies or spontaneous recoveries when Jesus happened to be there. It's important not to confuse the interpretation of the event with the event itself.

Consider for a moment what people imagined comets and meteor showers to look like up close before science told us what they were. Consider the many shapes and objects people saw in the stars.

Consider the idea many people held pertaining to the divinity of the sky, the realm of the Gods to some, the realm of heaven to the painters of most of those paintings.

All I see are religious objects, talismans, superstitious renditions of comets. To think it is all evidence of UFOs is contrived I'd say faced with easier explanations, but this of course is not going to make sense to you or the great truth you feel to be on the verge of uncovering or glimpsing. You really don't have much of a place among a forum of skeptics other than a shared opposing view to organized religion, but you're still trapped in the reasoning of the religious mind with the certainties you feel so strongly about. I don't mean to keep singling out your comments here, but it's really out of place and distracting from the topic.

I'm with Nick on this one. People, particularly ancient people with a lot less scientific explanation for 'stuff' than we have today, tend to see a conscious will in anything and everything. The sun and moon; deities. The stars; deities. A meteor; deities.

Or turn it around; "The spirit of god descends upon him/her/them/the event." How might one depict that? As a bright light source with a face descending down upon whatever.

Of course, I'm mostly saying this just to see if Matt VDB will take the pro-ufo-jesus side just so he doesn't have to agree with me.

Hey now! Why would agreeing with me strain you in any way, sir? The only thing I said in here was I thought it plausible Jesus could have never existed to give rise to what we know, and wished to see the evidence for it.

You then provided ample evidence to support a contrary view, and I proclaimed you had changed my mind in that I am open to the possibility the figure is based on an actual man, so what's with the need to lie down and the taking of the Tetragrammaton in vain, eh !?!?!?!